mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Separate repo for MXNet infrastructure
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2018 16:07:56 GMT
Very good questions! My proposal would be that projects stored in that
separate repository would be entirely independent of the mxnet code. If
there is something that would need an update on both repositories, it's a
strong indicator that it should be put into the mxnet repository. There is
no coupling between the two repositories.

>From my perspective, we would not do any releases in that repository.
Contributions would happen in the same way as it happens right now: People
make pull requests and they can then be merged by committers.

I personally think that storing things like these under the mxnet
repository might make it unnecessarily big and also create a conflict of
concerns. Code in the mxnet repository repository should be in direct
relation to the source of mxnet.
Another problem there would be our ci process. We would have to run the
entire CI pipeline although a patch might only touch the tools. This is not
necessary.

Avoiding the coupling allows us to ensure that solutions are entirely
standalone and that they build on top of the user APIs. If we tightl
integrate it, we might run into cases where people make changes in the
mxnet code out of convenience on a fly-by.

One example for a project would be the email not from Cathy. Her project is
entirely independent from the mxnet source and it should be made clear that
this is actually the case.

Best regards,
Marco

sandeep krishnamurthy <sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 2. Aug.
2018, 17:50:

> apache/incubator-mxnet-tools is a good idea.
> I have few queries on - how do we manage separate repository, releases,
> changes by contributors may have to go to 2 repositories (when CI updates
> are required), is it going to be inside 3rd party module, versions of
> dependencies in tools should match with other resources in repo ex:
> setup.py etc.
>
> Why not under mxnet repo a CI / tools / infra folder and all this tools go
> under it?
>
> Best,
> Sandeep
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 4:12 AM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I like tools more.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:05 AM Marco de Abreu
> > <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > definitely a good point, Isabel. During our office hour we thought
> about
> > > creating a repository under the Apache account with a name like
> > > incubator-mxnet-tools or incubator-mxnet-infrastructure. Does anybody
> > have
> > > other ideas for naming or maybe a better solution?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Marco
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:35 AM Isabel Drost-Fromm <isabel@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am 1. August 2018 09:36:24 MESZ schrieb Yuelin Zhang <
> > > > zhangyuelinchina@gmail.com>:
> > > > >My concern is where should my code be finally merged. This bot is
> not
> > a
> > > > >part of MXNet framework but it serves MXNet community. For now, a
> good
> > > > >option is to have a separate repo for infrastructure.
> > > >
> > > > As this would be something that serves the mxnet project, my advise
> > would
> > > > be to make sure it ends up in a location that is controlled by the
> > Apache
> > > > mxnet PMC, in a location that is mirrored back to ASF resources.
> > > >
> > > > Isabel
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sandeep Krishnamurthy
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message